IGF 2017 - Day 1 - Assembly Hall - High Level Thematic Session 'Shaping Our Future Digital Global Governance'


The following are the outputs of the real-time captioning taken during the Twelfth Annual Meeting of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in Geneva, Switzerland, from 17 to 21 December 2017. Although it is largely accurate, in some cases it may be incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or transcription errors. It is posted as an aid to understanding the proceedings at the event, but should not be treated as an authoritative record. 




MODERATOR:  Thank you very much, we will now have a musical interlude.



MODERATOR:  Please remain seated while they leave the auditorium.

Thank you very much.  Now let me hand over the moderation of the high level session to Ms. Nathalie Decommon, Deputy Chief Editor at the Swiss National Television, RTS, and the remote moderation to Mr. Jovan Kurbalija, founding director of the (?) Foundation and head of the Geneva internet platform.


MODERATOR:  Thank you, thank you very much.  Thank you very much.  It's a pleasure and an honor, of course, to be able to moderate today's high level session.  Welcome to all of you.  We are about to discuss one of the most important challenging, worldwide, impacting subjects, the shaping of our future digital global governance.  I will please ask our panelists, ladies and gentlemen, following our president, Doris Leuthard, to come and join me on stage, please.

(lost audio) .

>> -- of our ICT, something we need to focus.  We need an investment, we don't have enough investment yet, we still have to push for investment.  The new development, rely on the money only is not sufficient, we need the innovation, in a way to do our business.  The last “I” I would consider is inclusive, that we have to ICT benefit to everybody and not to leave anybody behind.  So, specialized agency, we are working on new technologies, like the 4G, 5G -- engaged in these kinds of things.  We also take care of ‑‑ building and we focus on connecting people that are not connected yet, this is very important. 

Of course, the president mentioned the confidence to use the cyberspace, and that is absolutely important and we like to also play active roles and ITU try to invite all of the ‑‑ to join us, and mentioning my speech, the Google joined ITU as a new member since 2015, thanks to your support.  So, we would like to encourage the cooperation and let me just stop here.  Thank you.

MODERATOR:  Thank you very much.  Ms. Mariya Gabriel, commissioner for Digital Economy and Society at the European commission, what is your vision of the coming years talking about global digital governance?

MARIYA GABRIEL:  I'm going to speak in French because I believe very firmly in the value of diversity.  As a newcomer in the family come here with all of my youth, but also in full respect of the work that's been done by my peers, and I very much see today's event as an opportunity to say that we built a lot together.  We have had some successes and we have achieved a lot and we have done that because what unites us is values. 

So the way I see it, the internet of the future has to continue to be an internet of values, we have to have an internet that is open and free, and we need to be open minded when faced with the new challenges.  We want an internet that is more resilient, more transparent and more worthy of trust, those are the challenges before us today.  We have to be even more open today to make sure that new technology, the internet, automation, are seen citizens as an opportunity and not as a threat. 

In order for that to come about, we have to look much more closely at the implementation and application of these values and these policies and what our shared responsibility is in this area.  We are always responsible for the future of the internet, if we fail, we all fail, if we succeed, we all succeed.  One of the most important aspects is digital skills.  We have to ensure that all citizens view the future of the internet with confidence and trust.  And that will come if they are able to make full use of internet's tools.  It's a good idea to talk about security issues, of connective devices.

We focused on that in the past, and today we have to continue to develop our critical thinking that will be able, that will allow us to be able to focus on issues such as fake news.  I think that there are some methods of work which we have to abide by, we have to continue to work together.  It's only by working together that we will be able to achieve results.  And that's why the IGF is so important.  It's the forum which will allow us all to press ahead together and we very much have to move down that path.  The future is about the internet of values, which is centered, where there are digital skills and accountability and declarations that we have a tendency to hear so much of. 

A final point, the digital change that we are facing is a challenge, the challenge posed is to keep our human face, no robot or machine will ever replace a human being, and their creativity, the social relations, that's what we must talk about when we talk about the future of the internet.

MODERATOR:  Thank you, Madam.

MODERATOR:  Ms. Kathy Brown, you were about to have a say, sorry about that.  President and chief executive officer of the internet society, you lead the internet society in its mission to keep the internet open, and beneficial to all people around the world.  We will talk about these values that you are promoting.  What is your vision in the coming years of the global digital governance?

KATHY BROWN:  Thank you so much, and thank you for having us here, and for all of you being here to think through these very important issues.

I think what we hear from folks on the stage and through the opening was a commitment to an open, free, globally connected, secure network.  But that is not a foregone conclusion.  If we listen closely to what secretary general we know that if we do not confront those issues, that we could have a very different future than the one we all want to have.

The internet society feels some urgency around this issue.  And some need for us to recommit ourselves to what we say our model is for working through these serious problems.

We say our model is a multi‑stakeholder, multidisciplinary approach.  The folks in room who are between 18 and 30, and there are a number of them here because they know their future depends upon the answer to these questions, will be in charge in 10 years, and they will not be people who grew up without the internet, in fact, they will have grown their whole lives on the internet.

As one of the wonderful women who I met this summer, when we were in Kenya, said to me, the internet is our life.  If the internet is our life, then governance is about the way we live.  And thus governance is on a very local level, it is on a regional level, where people live and breathe, and it is on a global level.

And to think that we will only talk about internet governance in this space as a global issue as wrong way to think as the internet goes around the world and changes and evolves.

So, my view of the future is, we have a choice to make.  And my call to this assembly is to think about that with some urgency and clear negotiation of what it is we have to do.  This a assembly thinks about this, prepares itself to go and be accepted to those tables and to have a choice in their future.

>> Thank you very much, Ms. Brown.  Mr. Loeb.  


MODERATOR:  Thank you, senior vice president, regulatory affairs of AT&T, one of our private sector representatives in the big family today.  Thank you.  What is your vision of the digital governance in the coming years?

ERIC LOEB:  Thank you so much.  Today I'm pleased to be here and represent the international chamber about of commerce, theism ICC based in Paris, is the voice of business and as an observer status with the United Nations.  There are two points that I would like to share about how it is that we govern within the multi‑stakeholder process.  And the first one I would like to get at by honoring the memory of a giant from the private sector who has been a part of the IGF from the beginning, and it's with sadness that we last Joe this year, a person who so many people in this room know. 

And I mentioned Joe out of memory but also out of respect for how his work embodies the way we want to work together in the multi‑stakeholder process.  And that is with collegiality and collaboration.  Its factor, and it's with empathy as well, it's with an eye to solving problems that are immediate, but not losing sight of the long term of where you need to be.  And with all of this, we have to be thinking about the consequential issues.  I think of Joe and I think of all of our work and how we work together across our various interests to achieve progress and shared important issues.  The second issue I want to bring up is something slightly different but also how we govern, it's wonderful that we are all here in this room. 

At the same time we think about inclusivity, and we talk about inclusiveness all the time, and we are all here with the technology orientation, yet there's so much we need to do in the coming years to utilize that technology in strategic ways and halfway around the world and physically in the room to have a voice and input.  As we work in the coming years, whether it is with virtual reality, with tools of collaboration, we should aspire that for someone who is not here, who can't be here for financial reasons, disability reasons, you can go down the list, have just as much an impact as participation as is here.  So those are just two initial thoughts how we can work together.

MODERATOR:  Thank you very much, minister of information of Bangladesh, we would like to hear your vision in the coming years.

>> Thank you very much, Your Excellency, co‑panelists.  We are in the third ICT revolution but it is ‑‑ and the world is ‑‑ but there are certain unfinished tasks.  And fill the gaps along with other deficits, I want to mention only 3.9 billion are out of 7.5 billion population of the world are off line. 

While I fully agree with the president, we need to focus on the needs of the citizens of the world, and the governance will adapt to the ‑‑ agree with his Excellency, of the United Nations, works of caution on the issues of internet.  Having said that, I think if you want to shape the future of the world, there are certain (?)  Number one, threat of cyber criminals, in the cyberspace to lack of digital ‑‑ and United Nations and developing countries, and the first developing ‑‑ digitalization process, the lack of digital economy management, and management of the internet.  So it is time worthy ‑‑ with internet, and let us say yes to human rights, no to terrorism and cyber criminals and denounce ‑‑ of the next system. 

Having said that, I want to propose four global ‑‑ number one, is cyber strategy, number two, a digital economy framework and the United Nations format, and third, universal declaration on right of internet as a basic internet by law.  Four, multi‑stakeholder governance under the sanction format. 

Having said that, I propose seven action plans ‑‑ connected, remolding of the digital system to ‑‑ ICT citizens.  Third, fourth, widen role of the government to develop the infrastructure.  Five, removal of the trans boundaries ‑‑ for E‑Commerce, trade and business, six, compatible digitalization to develop social, economic and ‑‑ divide.  Seven, accessible and affordable internet for all.  I hope the conference will look into my global and 7 action plans.  Thank you very much.

MODERATOR:  Thank you, Excellency, thank you very much.  We are surely talking about inclusive.  Hello, vice president and chief of Google, you are an American entrepreneur, you know where we are coming from, do you know where we are heading to?  Let's hear your vision.

VINTON CERF:  The simple answer is no.  In fact, we are headed wherever it is that this organization eventually aims us at.  But let me try to imagine, it's December, 2027.  We will be sitting here again and we will still be wrestling with a number of issues.  And the reason for that is simple.  This system is going to evolve.  It's our use of it, it's the creativity and invention that surrounds it that will cause us to continue to talk about internet and its governance.  But I'm going to try to make some predictions.  There will be at least 6 billion people on‑line by 2027.  There could be more, but some of them may not want to be.  That may be our fault. 

Second, if the IGF is successful, so I'm conditioning everything else here on that, then there will be increased multi‑stakeholder collaboration around increased safety, security, reliability, stability and privacy practices aimed at increasing trust in the internet.  There will be more attention to cyber literacy, to improve and entrepreneurial and business development and also to assess the quality of content found in the net.  We will have a responsibility to do that assessment, no one else can do that for us.

There will also be a long term enhancement of internet infrastructure, especially for rural populations.  We will solve that problem.  There will be a lot more attention to local contend and languages for all the world's users and increased access to the world's public information.

And finally, I sincerely hope that there will have been a successful defense against the fragmentation of the internet.

MODERATOR:  Thank you very much., hello, deputy executive director of UN women, thank you for being here, you certainly know about coordination and strategy partnership in your position, so, what is your vision of how we should all collaborate in the future for a good digital governance?

>> Well, as UN women, we are very pleased that a woman and president of Switzerland takes over the chairmanship of this forum.  And this is a gender equal panel ‑‑


>> It is.  But as UN women, of course, we look to a future, which is led by, participated in, and beneficial equally to women.  And we also look to women shaping that future, through activity.  And we look to a future where governance enables bridging of the digital divide of women being brought to tech and tech going out to women.

And the digital revolution delivering for gender equality, women's empowerment, and women's human rights.  Because that purpose has to be solved.  And also delivering for the implementation and enabling the implementation of the historic gender equality impact that has been arrived at in the last five years, including, of course, the bridging platform for action, as well as the agenda 2030 and goal five, STG5, and we always say high five to that, and the internet world must deliver on particularly 5B, which is particularly points to how enabling technology can solve gender equality.  So, that's way clear.

The other aspect that I would like to highlight is harnessing the opportunities, how can governments harness the opportunities, the enormous opportunities that the internet presents for women's empowerment, whether it's education, health, skills, capabilities, entrepreneurship, it has a huge multiplier effect.  That governance must lead to that.  What does that mean?  That means in every aspect and tech sector, it means in every development and application, because there's everything, the ‑‑ is in the detail and in application, right? 

So global, regional, national level and local level, and it's not enough to mainstream policies, but it's important to target and advice priorities, by all stakeholders, it's also all important that government policies and special measures are brought into play and special measures are something I would really like to emphasize, it's not enough to generally place lip service unless you take special measures, unless you invest in specific targeted policies and measures for women and girls to benefit from and participate in internet governance and internet, in the internet itself, we will not be able to achieve the purpose.  Educational and research institutes, civil society, private sector, tech community, content providers, and also multi‑stakeholder initiatives, everybody has been talking about multi‑stakeholder governance.  And also social media, and some of them are now equally participating with us in some of the initiatives for non‑change, which is so crucial for gender equality, and that's a very important opportunity as well, it can be a threat.  So we have to also use that.

On the other side, this is my last point, on the other side, I think it's equally important that E governance initiatives really reach and involve women and target women and girls.  So, that's something that's the other side of governance.  And as I said, our dream, our vision is a planet 50/50, internet 50/50, digital revolution, 50/50.

>> Thank you very much.  Let’s go to Mr. Masahiko Tominaga, vice minister for policy coordination, we are just mentioning the importance of governance, what is your vision of the future?

MASAHIKO TOMINAGA:  Thank you, the development of the internet and the ‑‑ over the digital revolution has been far behind, far beyond any of our imaginations.  Visions of the internet is reaching every part of the society and economy.  The experience of human resistance well beyond anything encountered during the previous revolutions.  Up until now has been falling behind the rapid changes spared only by the ever advancing technologies.

Keeping in mind the tremendous ‑‑ in France on sieving life, society, and the economy, it's important to share our desirable vision for the future of digitalization, and the basic principles of digital governance for realizing that vision with different stakeholders.  And also important to facilitate ‑‑ activity discussion a necessary road map for working together.  Is we build up the infrastructure, and introduce digital technologies to achieve global digital connectivity, differences in governance and management and cyberspace by countries and regions can lead to the decline of the benefits of digital technologies., leading to disruption over the cyberspace.

It's important to promote further coordination, in other words ‑‑ governance to maximize the benefits.  Of digitalization for everyone.  I believe harmony ‑‑ it will grow much bigger.  As we all know digitalization has been developed and contributions by various stakeholders and ‑‑ this multi‑stakeholder participation must be continued.  However, we know in the physical world we live in that the sole participation of multi‑stakeholders will not guaranty sustainable development of the digital world.  Action and role taking by stakeholders is required for harmonization of digital governance.  One of the most essential technologies in today's world is artificial intelligence or AI.  And I'm promoting proactive global discussion on AI based on the ideas I have mentioned today.

The organization of, for economic cooperation and development is taking a leading role internationally concerning the discussion of various aspects of AI and is holding a ‑‑ the internet governance forum.  I'm supporting it.  Thank you very much.

MODERATOR:  Thank you very much, Mr. Tominaga.  Let's go to the director of policy and strategy for of the association for progressive communication, the APC, that's an international network of organization, working to support social justice and development, we are talking again about some of the shared values here, what is your vision of the future of the governance of internet?

ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  My vision, and if it's based on what is happening at the moment, would be a very dark vision.  And I do hope that we can divert from that.  And to do that, I think we have to acknowledge that much of what we think and say about the internet and internet governance is based on a fantasy, maybe the fantasy, but not just the fantasy in a negative sense, I think the hopes and dreams of the innovators is a space where you can be yourself, where if you are a minority or a cultural minority or someone who is politically oppressed, you can express and tell your story and gain the support.  And you can gain knowledge, where you can gain economic opportunity.

 And in fact I think what is happening is that the internet in many senses is really just reflecting the world as it is, which is a world full of inequality, full of violence and disruption.  I think for us to take some sense of control as a community and to change this trajectory, we need to acknowledge that it's not so much network that we don't trust ‑‑ deal with ‑‑ to trust responsibility and we cannot trust government to disrupt the government and shut it down in many parts of the world. 

We can't trust that we are not being surveyed, that journalists are not being target by the regimes that do not agree with what they say, I think we need it based on principles and norms that respect the technical integrity and the call, the publicness of the internet, and that are ‑‑ of human rights, and that also tackles some of the social ‑‑ such as gender inequality.  I think openness on its own, but openness to abuse, exploitation, openness to breaking the power of the internet to be a force for good.  I also think we need norms that look at competition and innovation.  And access to entry.  So, also norms and rules that ensure that from a market perspective, the internet is a more open space than it is becoming at the moment. 

That, I think, is actually the really tough challenge, that we want to openness, but we want to look at what form of engagement, regulation, participation between different stakeholders, public and private sector and it's needed to really protect that openness.

MODERATOR:  Thank you very much.  Vincent, you wanted to react?

VINTON CERF:  I want to thank her for making a very clear observation, I want to implement by making the following, offering the following notion.  The internet today and the world wide web is a reflection world we live in.  We can't run away from that, and if you try to change what's in the mirror, nothing happens, you have to change what is reflected in it.  Let's use the internet and it's reflection to tell us about our society and how it needs to change.  I think that is the call that can is put on the table, I support that.

MODERATOR:  Should we use rules and official policies aimed to that, to reach that purpose?

VINTON CERF:  I'm not sure that you can pass a law that changes human behavior.  I think we have to get humans to want to change.  You can threaten them, you can say if we catch you doing this, there will be consequences, but in the end, we have to want to make the society we want to live in.  Making the rules and enforcing them doesn't necessarily create the society that we want.

MODERATOR:  But we can understand the people representing governments, you are probably thinking at least if I had a set of rules that I could apply to function things when they are not going well and to respect all these values, that would be helpful.

>> I think a lot of laws we have today see the rules applicable to cyber, and I think we just must adapt it and also say to the public, when your ‑‑ initiative is to ‑‑ on the ground and in cyber territory, so ‑‑ you don't need to have a new penalty law actually the civil laws of today are mostly applicable also to the cyberspace.  I think, I would come back to it and thank the minister for his very concrete proposals.  And while we can, for hours, talk about inequality, I think what he said is, first of all, we must have infrastructure in all countries, and infrastructure so here I think that's something governments have to do and the private sector has to do.

MODERATOR:  You are creating new infrastructures?

>> Creating ‑‑ infrastructure and also literacy or basic knowledge about the internet and all technologies, I think here that's something that we have to do, and we as ‑‑ we have to change our classical cooperation and development, because so far, it's concentrated on old infrastructure.  And I think that we must think ‑‑ perhaps it's better to offer for some years free Wi‑Fi for all, perhaps this is much more helpful in investing in new bridges and roads and so on. 

Here I make some experiences with, for example ‑‑ with the president of ‑‑ together with others, we support the initiative, free Wi‑Fi for all and the effect was much more in favor of the population having access to the internet, having also affordable conditions, because an investor, when you have commercial rates, you will never get internet for all.  And I think here you must learn what is from politicians from, from government, from private sector, something you have to do, and then the laws we have apply in this new world, and when there is still something needed, this forum can help us to say what structure internet governance is needed, the rules of law that's clear for everybody, human rights, that's will clear for everybody.  So what remains in the governance structure, this we have to do here.

MODERATOR:  Thank you very much.  You have been asking for the mic, no ‑‑ wanted to react.

>> I wanted to react, in fact, to what the president said, very rightly, that it is crucial that basic infrastructure is universally available.  If you just look at women's access, out of the 3.9 you mentioned, billion, billion, that were unconnected, nearly 2 billion are women.  So how do we make available the connectivity, how do we create, enhance digital literacy, access to finance, and ‑‑ systems, sound legal and regulatory frameworks, I think everybody has talked about, digital education for all, I think I entirely agree with the minister's recommendations, and how do you bridge the higher education to employment gap?  T

his whole issue of how is the internet contributing to jobs crisis or is it contributing to a solution to the jobs crisis, I think that's a very important issue in terms of policies, roles and responsibilities.  And also it's about, you know, the whole issue of dealing with E government, you know, how can ‑‑ I mean, in our context, of course, we very much want women to be co‑designing, co‑delivering E government services.  And of course, it is incumbent on all actors to really take on these responsibilities and access connectivity, enabling the use of the internet, and also the impact.

MODERATOR:  It's a question of will power for every country to decide what they want.  You wanted to react, your excellency?

>> Under the prime minister ‑‑ for the last nine years, the poverty in ‑‑ they should drop to 24 percent, or 40 percent.  So it is what I want to ‑‑ with the excellency, madam, that the ‑‑ should come up with wider roads to invest in infrastructure and other things, we in Bangladesh reduce the gap mostly in the villages, more than 22,000 secondary schools have been given free complimentary ‑‑ that is very important.  At the moment out of 60 million people, 130 million are using mobiles, 80 million are internet users, for the last four years, that is a dramatic rise.  I want to say that here, the right to internet, what I ‑‑ said should be by law, in a universal declaration, it should be part of the conversation.

MODERATOR:  You see it as a human right, don't you?

>> Yes, I want to say that well, among other issues to focus, while the ‑‑ is investing, we are not limited to the so‑called free market economy, your government is investing in the ‑‑ specially in developing infrastructure.  So the people who doesn't have a laptop can go to the cyber center and talk to the ‑‑ for whatever can record whatever they want to do.

MODERATOR:  Is the private sector collaborating?

>> Yes, the private sector is collaborating, we have the mobile companies ‑‑

MODERATOR:  You need the investment, of course.

>> They are investing, they are responsible for this hung mobile network expansion, we have a hundred person coverage and internet coverage in the country.  But investing in internet connections, that's where the private sector is not coming.  The government needs to invest in the infrastructure.  That is how bridge the digital gap.  The future is digital world, so will the future ‑‑ will widen the digital gap or reduce the digital gap?  So if we do not ‑‑ then definitely the digitalization of the whole world will definitely hit a glass house, but this that glass house, there are so many hundreds of people living there.  But a democracy ‑‑ democracy is nothing but rule of law.  To me, democracy is like a mosquito net, you sit within the net, and ‑‑ (?).  So you need to take care of the cyber crime.  You need to develop a global agreement on cyberspace, cybersecurity ‑‑ adapted the cyber ‑‑ act which will be in parliament.

 So I say, well, we need laws to get us ‑‑ connectivity to keep safe the cyberspace, mind that the digitalization is a glass house.  While everything can be seen, but in the glass house, the children and women, we need to put the children, the women and the ‑‑ it is ‑‑ so, we, here comes the technical solutions and the legal solutions.  But the glass house will be on, nobody can check it.

>> But you are supporting laws, application on your regional ‑‑ I mean, in your country?

>> Sorry?

>> I mean, the laws, you are asking for new laws to tackle cyber threats ‑‑

>> Only the Bangladesh has drafted the laws, the last two years we have been discussing with all the stakeholders, by keeping human rights intact.  It is possible to ‑‑ security act.  Develop a security act ‑‑ cyber criminals.

MODERATOR:  That's the condition thing that the European has to deal with, I suppose, you want to react?

MARIYA GABRIEL:  I will start by saying that indeed a law cannot change human behavior.  But I think that we do need to take a bit more time to look into, say, was the approach that yield the best results, that's when we would see at the institutional levels, there are regulations and laws which ensure legal security, predictability, sustainable, including we talk about investments, because that's what we want.

Also, there are lots of objectives which should serve as catalysts.  We can't be a substitute to, for private initiative, for civil society, for individual thinking and reasoning.  But we can serve as the catalyst.  I would give a couple of examples, Wi‑Fi ‑‑ a pilot project of a European commission will launch in February, between six and 8 million communities in overseas access to internet for free in public places.  Obviously we would be happy if we had the support of the states and international partners and this initiative could be expanded to as many places as possible.  Another is digital opportunities scheme.  We all talk about the need to have people who are competent, and who can acquire skills, and then offer opportunities to other students who are not IT specialists, so they can come and see the technology, the Web design.  That would be another possibility.  The budget is only 10 million Euros, 120 million for the Wi‑Fi for you project, we are fully aware that that's not going to change everything.  But perhaps it could be a catalyst for change.  I think that from time to time that's also what we need from the public authorities, to be able to say through law, there will be predictability, security, and sustainable, and based on initiative.

>> Thank you, you wanted to react as well on that point?

>> I would agree that through the enlightenment of many government of the world, we have made great progress in access.  In terms of infrastructure, we have made progress in the last 10 years.  (Kathy Brown) .  So, this notion that we would all have access is starting, although the minister is saying there is still a third of the world not there.  Let's not forget that.  But the issue is, once we lived in the digital world, how do we govern ourselves, where we have a world that is borderless.  We can reach anywhere in the world when we are on the internet.  And that's the issues we have to face are very different.

And the concern that we have is that the tools in a world that is rapidly changing, and where the acceleration of change is increasing every day, it's not just that change, it's the acceleration of change is fast.  That we are not equipped to adjust, and to incorporate the needs of the various stakeholders, the voice, the aspirations of those stakeholders, the governments tend to be slow on purpose, and yet we live in a world that decisions need to be made, and they need to be made across borders.  And they need to be made in ways that we never had to before.  The hack that just took the identities of the credit agency didn't happen in the jurisdiction of the local police, it didn't.  Where was that and how was that?  And how can we start to think differently about that?

Part of what we say when we are talking about multi‑stakeholder participation, multi‑stakeholder engagement, is that there shouldn't be just a simple consultation, we got you, you put your paper in, thank you very much, but that working through those problems that are significant problems requires a different kind of decision making, that is collaborative in nature.

So while, as I listen to everyone, I actually agree with those outcomes, I don't disagree with those outcomes, the question is how are we going to get there in an inclusive way, so that those who need to ‑‑ understand the point of view, that is not one that is readily stood by various folks, have the opportunity to be involved in the actual decision making.  So to the extent that we all agree on what the outcomes will be, I'm not sure that we A, agree on the processes, because the processes have remain the same through these 20 years, the government that I serve is doing things the exact same way they did 20 years ago.  The exact same way.  Meaning nothing has changed.

>> One example ‑‑

KATHY BROWN:  Pieces of paper are put in by people who call themselves, you know, they are parties to the proceeding and the parties to the proceeding can put the paper in, and the agency goes off and behind closed doors makes a decision, gives an order, it goes to court and we do this nonsense, in my view, instead of sitting down and trying to figure out a problem where we get a consensus view so that it's a sustainable, ongoing decision that is made that can indeed give us some normative behavior.

MODERATOR:  Thank you very much, the process of decision making?

ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN:  I agree with Kathy's input.  I think we do need to constantly interrogate how we make these decisions, how we come to solving the problems.  I think the IGF remains really powerful platform to help us reflect critically on our own processes, on multi‑stakeholder processes and on policy making processes more broadly.  I do not think we need new laws, I agree absolutely, I think the rule of law is a very powerful tool.  And many people, if not most in the world, don't of access to it.  So what we need to do is to make sure that they do, and that those laws that we do have and those international rights that we do have are adhered to.

I think what's ‑‑ Kathy talked about the cross border nature, that makes the decision making process difficult, it makes the accountability also very difficult.  I think that's something that as a community we need to look at more.  How do we hold actors, who violate what we aspire the internet to be and violate existing rights and obligations, how do we hold them accountable in this cross border context.  And just a comment on cybersecurity, I think cybersecurity legislation is a good example, because it's usually made at the national level, but it also requires collaboration, adheres to global standards and tools as well, but it is also unfortunately becoming a vehicle where states are introducing regulation that for example criminalizes certain forms of speech which is not internet specific.  So it's also a risk, but a very good opportunity for us to change how we make policy and to ensure that it's done collaboratively and respectful of rights.

MODERATOR:  Thank you very much.  Unfortunately I think our president has to leave the panel, I have been told.  So please remain seated and we will let you just leave and thank you so much.  Thank you, Ms. Leuthard, president of the Swiss confederation.


>> Thank you.

MODERATOR:  Okay.  Eric Loeb was asking for the mic.

ERIC LOEB:  Thanks so much.  I wanted to make a point and come back to some of the challenges that we are facing and to reflect on something Vinton said before.  Many of the challenges that we have been talking about are short comings in our aspirations, inclusion, connecting the unconnected, closing the gender divide.  The point I want to make about fragmentation is it's a risk of regression, and one that when playing out, impedes progress on those aspirational areas.  And I think about that, perhaps we stake stock in 20 years, since 1997, which triggered so much market opening and access, there was a wave of access and connectivity that really has drawn together the internet as we know it.  And my observation as I work in countries all over the world, regions, there are many places where it's either getting harder to participate in the first place or you are having to exit.

So this point of fragmentation is important to highlight for its risk of achieving the other issues that we want to make progress on.

MODERATOR:  Thank you very much, Loeb.  I wanted ‑‑ we did promise we would have an interactive debate with our audience, so let's go to you.

>> We are going to switch your mic on.

>> Okay.  On behalf of on‑line community and remote participants, I notice some of them are here from the room, therefore, they are using the channel to send messages.  There are few trends in discussion ‑‑ quite a few comments with the two trends about difference between on‑line and off line world.  And then the question, can law change our behavior?  It cannot change, but it can influence. 

And we need the law ‑‑ time today, that was one line about change influence, and then we had an interesting discussion on ‑‑ which was brought by commissioner, and it also reflect a strong ‑‑ the question of urgency, which Kathy Brown wrote and the question of context, local context.  And few comments on the ‑‑ the context is not related to residence. 

Then there was a question who is missing here today, and there were two groups which are missing, people who are not connected, the lives are influenced but not connected, and future generations, how we can protect the interest of future generations.  Then there were quite a few more specific comments which we will summarize in the newsletter for tomorrow, but I know we are running out of time, therefore I will pass the floor back.

MODERATOR:  Thank you very much.  We have some questions in the audience, too.  So let's take a few remarks.  Sir, I can see you just press on your mic, and we should organize sound.  Just wait for it to ‑‑ you have to wait for the red light, once you have pressed the button.

>> Brian from the ‑‑ center for human rights.  Your distinguished speaker mentioned the need for an open and free internet, which are the many principal also of network neutrality.  This is lacking in our region, and other regions.  The question, like IGF ‑‑ it's getting worse over there.  So is there an initiative by the international institutions to support on‑line activists and protect the freedom of expression on the internet and our region, is there a real initiative to support civil societies that are facing governments that almost fully own the internet, countries, this is very much a need that without it, we are not going to make any change.  And that happens more common on behalf of the colleagues who didn't make it to Switzerland because of the complication of the Visa.  I think ‑‑ this was government ‑‑ but they said, kindly, next time hold the IGF in a more open and accessible country.  Thank you.

MODERATOR:  Thank you very much.  Would anybody like to answer?  Mr.‑‑

>> On behalf of other's point of view, let me answer question like that.  The ‑‑ guaranty human rights and freedom of speech.  The government for the last eight years has opened up the broadcasting network, radio in the private sector.  License given to the private sector.  More than 2,000 on‑line news portals are active.  And we have allowed that.  But that doesn't restrict ‑‑ and freedom of speech.  But at the same time my ministry has adopted a law on broadcast, a broadcast law and we are going to set up a broadcast commission that will not be in conflict with the basic right to speech and association.  So we can balance, it's a fine act of balancing, balancing of human rights with the freedom of speech.  That can be possible, so we can share experiences across the world.  And as a minister, I will say that I am for freedom of people totally.  No problem, I was a ‑‑

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  On freedom of speech and ‑‑

>> I will answer those two questions, they mentioned that ‑‑ future generations.  I see it's an absolutely important question for us, we can consider the SME, for example, SME's, they have very big power of innovation and also ‑‑ they want to do something and I think we have to work with them.  And last thing, I was in the ‑‑ to join the open their first innovation center, that everywhere in developing countries, you will see the young people from high tech, from innovation center, they have ‑‑ we have to try to integrate their power into our business.  And a second was those not connected yet, I mentioned that in my speech, and Vin also mentioned, we will have 6 million on‑line, so that is ‑‑ possible, and IT has ‑‑ set up a target by 2020, so that by 2027 ‑‑ anyhow, the problem is, the problem is, we talked about the connection of 1.5 billion on‑line, someone calculated that we need at least 400 or 50 billion dollars and we went to the bank, they did not put this money aside.  And this kind of thing to the ‑‑ 450 million only to connect the 5 billion people.  (?) not only the internet ‑‑ but also energy to support it.  That is quite a challenge. 

But anyhow, I see that 23 we have good policy, that should be positive.  One ‑‑ in 2011, they only had 5 percent of mobile, by the end of 2011.  Then they tried to change that to 50 percent by the year of 2015.  I told them, I was there.  If you open your market, it should be easy.  In fact by 2015, they reached the ‑‑ (?) so this kind of thing, I have seen the good environment could attract investment then it should be possible to get it ‑‑ anyhow, case of misperception that ICT's also a profit making business and sustainable, you don't need to care too much about that.  I think it's not a hundred percent true.  The industry, like AT&T, he could be bankrupted tomorrow, we have a lot bankrupted today. 

We have to encourage investment, to encourage the business people to finally come to the areas to the people not connected yet.  And we also work with other partners for the flexible ICT for our gender bias ‑‑ designate a special day, April of every year, ICT for women and girls, we have ‑‑ 160 countries mobilized, and we work with women to have this new projection of equals, tomorrow we will have a program, sponsored by ‑‑ we are grateful for their sponsorship, but they are still alarming ‑‑ I was in one of the African countries this year, that the University is my habit to visit the University, the students over the last decade, (?) women for mathematics, it's a ‑‑ so we still have to work.

MODERATOR:  Thank you very much.  Let's hear from our guests here in the room.  Thank you for being with us, the PT minister of Telecom, what is the view you would like to throw in concerning the debate.

>> Thank you very much for the opportunity.  The question is how do you see the world, the digital world in 10 years.  I would like to take you back two revolutions before, to the industrial one, it started in England, as you remember, with so that eventually people would say that the sheeps ‑‑ the man.  Evidence revolution as a side effect.  I believe this one, the fourth one will also have it.  Considering that we haven't realized, comprehended the results of the third one of the information revolution, and we are now already going in the fourth one after, and the world is accelerating after 30 years.  

Now, considering all the side effects and having in mind that the basement and the platform for the fourth digital revolution will be internet, we in Russia are very much concerned about government issues, even here, in this audience, there were a lot of, kind of ‑‑ the brave new world prophesies, what will it look like, will it increase the digital divide between the developing countries and the developed countries? 

Now there are a lot of issues.  And one of the main issues for all business, for example, is how to invest, where, whether the rules for the investments are existing or not.  Because, I mean, it will require the digital shift will require a huge number of investments and resources.  I'm not talking about the money, I'm talking only ‑‑ we are talking about ‑‑ preparation of the competencies of the resources for, to handle this revolution.  And so far and so forth.  We are talking about health, social kind of impacts that this digital revolution will have eventually.

We have started in Russia, industrial?  In Germany and Japan and US, most of the developed countries already have these programs.  There is a discussion how to unite them, how to match one to another, and this discussion has taken place in G20, and in some other venues.  We believe that since internet and digital issues are so universal with their impact to every aspect of humanity, that the best platform for the discussion of these issues should be UNO, at least one international platform where the rules and forms should be developed for all, for business, for society, for countries, so that in 10 years we will not suffer from the side effects that any revolution has, we know what revolution is, no matter what eventually happened with the results of the revolution.

So based on that, we think that several issues should be addressed to the UN level and discussed.  First the regulatory issues; second, the technological and research and development issues, so that we shouldn't waste the resource of the world actually, to this kind of stuff. 

The third one is considering the infrastructure, I mean, in order to ‑‑ in order to actually see the result, the fruits of the revolution, you need to have access to the services that this evolution will provide.  For all country, the biggest challenge is territory, and for us, the infrastructure means a lot.

Now, the fourth one is the issues regarding the international security, information security.  Fifty years ago the internet was invented by creative scientists, and know we can ask ‑‑ he didn't predict what it will eventually look like.

Now the stakes that we have are immense, they will touch upon everybody, that means that we have to discuss all this consequences and issues on a very high level, and we don't see anyplace other than the United Nations.

MODERATOR:  I would like some reaction to that, the question of having the UN level engaged.  Probably ‑‑ thank for being here.  We often say that a big institution, big infrastructure like the UN can't be efficient enough in terms of following up the development of technology and the changes of lives, really.  What is your opinion about his statement?

>> First of all, thank you very much for inviting me, I'm happy to be here in Geneva at IGF.

The simple answer to it is that we have excellent relationship with the UN system.  We had Zhao coming down to our meeting, and we had several ‑‑ we are very proud and happy about it.

But I think that to take a step back, to talk about ‑‑ there's many questions about the multi‑stakeholder model.  During the last 25 years, the ‑‑ fastest growing technology ever.  That is based on the ‑‑ people, solely benefit of coming into this global network.  During those 25 years, the multi‑stakeholder model has supported this.  And it's very much thanks to the multi‑stakeholder model that it exists.  We have been able to solve issues that no one in mankind have seen before, no one has seen the effects of connecting people.  The technical partners to provide the service is very proud to be part of it.  We do exist to provide a service to the world.

But in order to critical venture when it comes to the future of digital global governance, I believe that a ‑‑ it's important to have a diverse and conductive participation in meetings like this.  Because internet, as some people have already mentioned, hits every part of your life.  It has gone from just information sharing, that today, you do a lot of your work, your life, even your love life, on the internet.

And therefore, I think it's important that anyone would have a say in internet governance.  And ICANN, we bring together governments, science, education, civil society, businesses, into one multi‑stakeholder model.  And that is because no one should control ‑‑ systems, nobody should take control and no one should manage it without the multi‑stakeholder model.  This is also important for the next billion users, they are going to be very different from us. 

I claim that the current model has produced a lot of good results, but for the elite, people with money, people who live in the cities, people who can understand English as a concept to read from left to right or a dot in the middle.  We have to improve ourselves and do better so we can make sure that the next billion users, primarily mobile, can use their own local languages, their own scripts, in a better way, because that's the one we need to reach.

The fundamental understanding is that by connecting people on one global network, something magical happens, it's something we should never forget.  And I look forward to work with everybody in this room, with everybody here to make sure we can shape this future together in a diverse and multi‑stakeholder way.  With that, I would like to thank you everybody who has created the first three to four billion users of the internet.  Thank you.

MODERATOR:  Thank you very much, next to you we also have, secretary general of the ministry of communication and information, technology of, what do you have to say about the shaping of our future, global governance?

>> Thank you for having us here.  In our opinion, Indonesia, 103 billion ‑‑ E‑Commerce, transaction.  In this, the ‑‑ and the digital (?) infrastructure through the (?) program to pursue a docket in 2019.  Telecommunication infrastructure project in the palm of fiber optic construction in Indonesia, among the ‑‑ million connecting several major islands in Indonesia, there is 340 cities.  In addition ‑‑ start this program to ‑‑ more enterprises go on‑line and more digital start up.  We also realize the internet also bring the impact that Indonesia also suffers from ‑‑ especially by the spread of illegal content, success as hawks and hate speeches.  Therefore we not only action in the downstream by enforcing the law, access of illegal content, the government of Indonesia, the disability movement, cyber creation of multi‑stakeholders in ‑‑ up streaming sites. 

We are continuously working to improve the mechanism of internet governments which the spirit of multi‑stakeholder.  One of the ‑‑ is by running a number of dialogues through Indonesia and the internet government program, which has been able since 2002, in Bali, and last month we connected our dialogue, 2017, followed by almost a hundred ‑‑ 500 participants from previous stakeholders.  Finally we would like to express our ‑‑ for the preparation of the IGF 2017.  Thank you.

MODERATOR:  Thank you very much for your contribution.  I think we have, do we have a special guest by video?

>> Special guest, the president of Microsoft, he is going to deliver a message, I guess it is ready.

>> Hello.  I'm Brad Smith, president of Microsoft.  I'm thrilled to speak with you today.  The internet governance forum is an ideal opportunity for stakeholders from around the world to discuss the important policy issues posed by the digital transformation taking place around us.

I can't think of a better place to have this discussion than Geneva, a city I had the pleasure of visiting just last month.  As all of you know well, it doesn't matter where on the planet you come from, we all live in a digital world, whether it's how we work, create, communicate, or entertain ourselves, digital technology has become a cornerstone of our lives.  And that raises fundamental questions for all of us. 

For example, how do we protect the digital world that we all rely on, from hackers, and nation state attacks?  How do we ensure that the benefits of digital transformation are realized in every corner of the world?  And how do we ensure that everyone, no matter their circumstances or ability, can take part in the digital economy?  At Microsoft we appreciate that we have a responsibility in helping to address all of these issues.  That's why we have called for the tech sector, governments, and civil society to come together to establish a Digital Geneva Convention for the 21st century, a convention that builds upon existing international law to keep the world safe, not just attacks on machines, but attacks on vital infrastructure, which left unchecked, will only grow in severity. 

It is also why we launched our Airband Initiative in the United States which will expand globally to ensure those without access to broadband can get access to broadband.  And it's why we are so deeply committed to expanding digital skills education around the world to ensure that everyone, no matter where they live or current circumstances, can acquire the skills they need to thrive in the digital economy

If United Nations is to realize its 2030 sustainable development agenda, all of us need to play an important role.  As technology's role continues to grow, we at Microsoft are committed to partnering with stakeholders from around the world to ensure we build a cloud for global good that empowers us all.  Thank you.

MODERATOR:  Okay.  Let's ‑‑ yeah, we can applause, let's have the reaction from a few of our panelists before we go back to the audience on the proposal, the solution that is been stated hereby Brad Smith, the international convention, which could response the a few of the worries that we heard earlier on.  Probably Maria gab ‑‑ what would you think of an international convention?  Mariya?

MARIYA GABRIEL:  As I said earlier, I think that we need more cooperation today.  And if such a convention were to be able to allow us, aware of the same challenges, to say that we have this shared responsibility, then it could speed things along.  But for that to happen, we need everyone to express their will, all of us need to be looking in the same direction, and we need to be sure that we are basing our work on values and principles.  Nothing that we do in the future will be able to hold water if we don't have the solid basis to allow us to concede that we have achieved things because of this shared will that is brought here today.  But also to recognize that we want to continue to work in future, fully in the knowledge of the new challenges.

>> You had quite a few values in common, that, it's rather the mean, it's how to apply and get together to making decisions and deciding on policies.  Am I right or wrong?

VINTON CERF:  It seems to me much of what we are talking about has to do with the society that we want to live in and that invokes societal conventions, some of those are conventions that say society, these things we consider harmful and we will try to do things to mitigate those harms.  One of the big challenges that we have in this arena is to discover what things we choose to hold in common on a global scale.  This is very difficult because of variations in culture and history and geography.  But I think that's what we need to go after.  I want to draw your attention to a phenomenon that hasn't been mentioned yet.  We have been having these meetings on an annual basis, they started in 2006.  Did you notice what happened without any particular top down ruling or energy or planning, but regional and national IGF's popped up like mushrooms after a spring rain. 

It's important that that happened.  What it means is that there is conversation going on, not just in this annual meeting, but in other places during the course of the year, out.  Of the shear desire to have that conversation and I hope we get insight into what those conversations reveal and that will discover what we choose to hold in common.

>> Yes, I think you are right, there is some commonality, but also different approaches about how to take this forward.  I want to respond to Mr.‑‑ first, I think he is absolutely right, I think the internet does pose challenges that we should be approaching whether a research agenda that we talk about together was looking at the need for regulations, for how we apply existing laws effectively.  I think, and your proposal that this should happen within the UN system, the response would be that the IGF is inside the UN, and I think if we are not able to use this forum effectively to provide that kind of platform, I'm not sure that we need another new mechanism within the UN.  I think with regard to the Geneva convention, I think it's been really interesting and courageous of Microsoft to put this forward.  I'm not sure we are ready for a convention but I think the process of beginning to talk about shared norms, and to consolidate an understanding of the internet as a public commonly owned entity, and as I said earlier today, not public as controlled in government governments, but public in us, common to all us, I do think is a useful initiative.

>> Mr.‑‑ just asked for the microphone.

>> I think as a nation, during my opening remarks, there should be a global governance, because it will compare internet regulation with civilization with the ‑‑ system of transportation in a ‑‑ develop so fast due to the international regulation, because people feel safe, safety security development of technology.  That's why I think for the internet, definitely, there must be international, global system.  But I know that it is difficult.  I think we need to realize the challenges that we are facing.  That's what I think we started with the government notions, we started multi‑stakeholder.  That's why I think ‑‑ my advice would be, make good use of this multi‑stakeholder IGF to develop ideas, to find out the issues, which area we need to regulate first.  I think it's not easy, and not good to start ‑‑ to have a comprehensive convention (?) too early to say that.  But need to say which area we need to regulate.

MODERATOR:  Probably in 10 years?

LIU ZHENMIN:  Yes.  I think also for ‑‑ the sector, for the scientific community, this I need to see some kind of prediction that they will have various ‑‑ environment to invest, to develop.  I think most importantly for the people, for the users, I think our policy maybe by 2027, which is 6 billion users, but we need to see the internet system will be secure and safe.  Because people are worried, the internet, without any international regulations, maybe our national security would be threatened, maybe the community security will be threatened, maybe the bank system will be threatened.  Security system is becoming one of the challenging issues, I hope, the idea for the multi‑stakeholder forum, that the people from the ‑‑ identify which areas we need the urgent response.  And that we need to plan, we need to ‑‑ for the regulation, for future.  Thank you.

MODERATOR:  Thank you, so we have global governance, but we also have micro governance, because we understand that it can be very efficient to work on a smaller scale.  And we have common values, some of them, so I feel that we are progressing.  I know you would all like to ask something.  I just want to go back to the audience, I did say that we would be interactive.  But we will go back to this.  Probably one question about, you know, what we have just heard.  We have one question here, sir.  Or comment.

>> Okay.  It's, actually it's two questions, and it's for everyone in the room.

So the first question is, who thinks that you know what the cities in ‑‑ country wishes for internet governance in 10 years.  And I wouldn't raise my hand.  So, who raises his or her hand in the room?


>> So, second question:  Wish that in 10 years when we would met that the citizens of the world wish for internet governance, and I wish that.  And I wish that we would have 200, 300 citizens of the world here in the room giving their recommendations to the stakeholders, but with the wish what they want for the future of the governance of internet.  And there are ‑‑ for that.  I think from reactions from the panel that you think that this is a good idea.  Thank you very much.

MODERATOR:  But civil society is one of the multi‑stakeholders, isn't it?  Thank you, yes.  There was another state from civil society, Kathy Brown.  Mrs. Brown, please.  Thank you.

KATHY BROWN:  Thank you for that, very much.  I really appreciate it.

In the last 18 months, the internet society has conducted interviews around the world, and I would ask you to take a look at our global internet report this year.  And we asked our wider community amongst which technologists and civil society and human rights and business, what did they think was going to happen with the internet and what are they worried about?  What are they happy about, what do they see are the opportunities, and what are they worried about?

MODERATOR:  Do they share the same worries that we have expressed today?

KATHY BROWN:  What's interesting to me is that nobody thought was making a law was going to help, was actually going to be the answer to what they are worried about.  What they are worried about is that the control of their lives, the ability to use this amazing tool, this place where they live, will be somehow taken away or taken control by other entities, number one, big worry.

What they believe could happen is that it becomes the tool for the empowerment you are talking about and that you want so much, and that there's a list of things that are, that have to happen in order for the good things to happen and the bad things not.

But what they want is a seat at the table.  They want a seat at the table.  They want to be part of that decision making.

MODERATOR:  But ‑‑ you are not a representative.

KATHY BROWN:  This isn't a representative issue, I don't represent anybody but myself.  I can tell you what the community thinks about, they are willing and want to engage with those that make decisions.  Second point:  Governments do not make every decision about our lives, please, and yet the internet is in every part of our lives, so this notion I get very nervous that we think that the conversation we are having here about what is government control all about is the whole question, it is not.  There are issues that need to be resolved at different layers, different levels of the internet that have nothing to do with the government, that have to do with the technical way the internet operates, the way we live, the way we want to run our communities, our schools, the way we want to actually drive a car, the way we want to get our information from our doctors. 

How are we going to solve those things?  And with all due respect, I don't think it's with a global treaty.  We may well have some issues on war and peace, we may have issues on conventions on what is a way to think about the public internet, the core of the internet, that it may do well for us to get to agreement, there is a commission right now on the stability of cyberspace, that seems to me a good conversation to have, but we are so early in that conversation.  And I think what the question that was posed here, do we all know what everybody thinks?  We have some ideas what people think.  Do we know enough to make a law to say this is now how we shall all go forward?  I'm not so sure.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.

>> I would like to ‑‑


>> I would just like to add a few words, here cybersecurity as very important issue.  IT has worked on this the last two decades, the first decade, we worked with engineers, therefore, in 1998 suggested to the United Nations to organize a process to engage more stakeholders to come to this point.  We are very pleased to see that the process be continued for the next 10 years as well.  And the, in 2007, we organized the highly expect for the cybersecurity agenda and we had several key experts in the room as are part of that group, the idea to have a Geneva convention was ‑‑ by some great ‑‑ from the market.

This is the inside ‑‑ there's no general agreement.  So, different opinions.  And then we tried to see if we can get some kind of ‑‑ area, like charter on‑line protection.  People all agree that porn graph is not good for the children.  There are issues that are a hot topic, today I'm pleased to see that the issues are ‑‑ also good to the (?) and also that inside ‑‑ when we told that, we heard different opinions from different member states, but we never heard such kind of public call from big companies like Microsoft, so that we have to ‑‑ it's the first time for me to hear this kind of a call from an industry.  I would like to also have further studies and try to get more information from them, I know that the Microsoft plays important roles inside the United States, for government, for industries, we like to see ‑‑

MODERATOR:  We are talking about the 10 next years, we have time to think about it.  I would like to go back to what the people think, they don't want government to always rule their lives, FaceBook, and Google and Twitter to take all their private data.  How do you protect the people, then?

>> ‑‑ or help the people.

>> We certainly know what women want.

>> Do you?

>> I think so.  I think so.  They want governance and there are three aspect of governance that we think women want and deserve.  (Lakshmi Puri) .  One relates to access, the digital divide is growing.  That's one.  The second aspects of governance is how can governance in the way that governments regulate in the way that private sector acts, or social media platforms operate, and regulates, self‑regular late, maybe, but how they govern, how does that really help them to be empowered, to have, to benefit fully from the internet.  And how does, we talked about earlier there were questions about off line and on‑line realities, and how does the off‑line reality get translated into on‑line?  Or, it becomes worse or it becomes better.  Now, what they would also want is that internet governance be such that the cyber threats that women face, the new form of violence, harassment, harmful stereotypes that the internet is perpetrating is something that they would like regulation to address.  Certainly we know and we feel that these are the three major areas where women and girls want internet governance to deliver.

MODERATOR:  Thank you very much., what people, what users really want, we are talking about women in the sense of a community, that needs protection, but going back to the civil society as well, that they were mentioning, can we hear, can we do something about what the people want, what the users want?

VINTON CERF:  I'm not going to try to speak for everyone in the whole world.

MODERATOR:  But, you are, you are.

VINTON CERF:  I would like to feel safer, I would like the technologists to help me get there and learn practices that would make me feel and actually be safe, I would like companies to feel pressure to behave in a way that also improves my sense of safety and trust.  This is a very shared responsibility across all layers, we will have need to feel comfortable using and that we can build on.  We have gone a long way from the three networks that we demonstrated in 1977.  So, I have the feeling that we have the capacity to do this if we have the will to do this.

MODERATOR:  But who would give the good practices, for instance?

VINTON CERF:  I'm sorry, who ‑‑

MODERATOR:  Who would deliver the good practices, you said as a user, you would like to know about good practices to have a safe environment.  Who should give these good practices?  Companies?  Governments?

VINTON CERF:  Actually, there are a variety of sources.  My company tries to help people do a better job of using the network safely.  We give them technology to do that.  We insist on using cryptography.  I think our entire educational system has to start very early on, not only with teaching people practices to do safe networking, but also, and I will say this over and over again, to think about what they are seeing and hearing in this environment, because if we don't learn how to think critically, we are going to become very confused.

>> Quickly, to that question, I agree completely, and your question about the good practices, I think they emerge from collaboration between technical people and users and know that their rights will be respected.  I think the comment from the floor is a really important one, are we using our technology that we created enough to deep pen democracy and deepen governance.  And we spent I think more time now about how to apply conventional models of government to the internet than really using its potential to make it more inclusive and more accountable.  Thank you.


MODERATOR:  We are getting close to the end of our panel.  I would like to ask the other ministers in the room on the floor they would like to add comments or a remark to the debate. 

(Captioning ending in two minutes.)

>> Do we have mark in the audience outside the room?

>> No major prophesies.

MODERATOR:  Your own prophesies?

>> They are arguing it's not possible to regulate unique space on on‑line communication, and it's a matter of time when we are going to get treaty.  Some comments, summarize that it's premature now based on discussion on Day 0.  Those are two groups of comments, it's not possible to regulate, it's almost inevitable, but it's just a matter of time when we are going to get the treaty.

MODERATOR:  Thank you very much.  It's not very surprising, there we go, exactly.  As I said, yes, please.  Minister of ‑‑ have Bangladesh.

>> It's working?  It's working.  I have been, as I said in my opening, that the digital space created by ‑‑ should be secured.  And the national governments are going for laws and rules and ‑‑ enact.  But since internet is a cross board technology ‑‑ we need a global governance on the security issue, that's why I said cyberspace security needs to develop gradually, what Microsoft said, well, to start with, we can start the discussion by convening a convention and then (?) there are two aspects, one is (?).  Cyber war ‑‑ against politicians, overt and covert.  How to de‑militarize the space.  The safety and security of the cyberspace, we can start at the Geneva convention and the appropriate ‑‑ but my understanding is in 10 years’ time, definitely we needed global cyberspace security.  

(Captioning ends here.)